LetsRun.com wrote:To the tiny few Armstrong defenders that are still out there,

I think LR is misconstruing people who think the overt rants against Lance Armstrong are slightly unprofessional, and obviously overboard, with "defenders." I doubt anyone here defends Armstrong as innocent, but nobody outside of Letsrun's staff has gone so tangentially awry on these boards, flaming the already debased cyclist.

Stater of the Oblivious wrote:Ten years ago, Wilbon was kissing his nutsack, like every other so-called journalist, furthur fueling his need for more PEDs. Media should own up to being part of the problem.

So true. And it's the same with baseball and those HOF voters, who were pandering to the McGwires and Sosas, while doing no investigative research about the biggest offensive explosion in the game's history.

A man comes back from life threatening cancer to go on and win the greatest race in the dirtiest sport, 7 times in a row. I've never understood why sportswriters don't step up for the real journalistic pieces.

LetsRun.com wrote:To the tiny few Armstrong defenders that are still out there,

I think LR is misconstruing people who think the overt rants against Lance Armstrong are slightly unprofessional, and obviously overboard, with "defenders." I doubt anyone here defends Armstrong as innocent, but nobody outside of Letsrun's staff has gone so tangentially awry on these boards, flaming the already debased cyclist.

Agreed. We get it. You don't like Lance because he doped. It's time to let it go.

LetsRun.com wrote:To the tiny few Armstrong defenders that are still out there,

I think LR is misconstruing people who think the overt rants against Lance Armstrong are slightly unprofessional, and obviously overboard, with "defenders." I doubt anyone here defends Armstrong as innocent, but nobody outside of Letsrun's staff has gone so tangentially awry on these boards, flaming the already debased cyclist.

Agreed. We get it. You don't like Lance because he doped. It's time to let it go.

Actually, you apparently don't get it.

Folks who passionately hate Lance do not do so because he doped. They do so because he went out of his way to destroy the careers, and to the extent possible the personal lives, of those who had the audacity to tell the truth. This is indeed a reasonable reason to absolutely despise the guy.

From Dan Wetzel's article:

3. Let's talk Betsy Andreu, the wife of one your former teammates, Frankie. Both Andreus testified under oath that they were in a hospital room in 1996 when you admitted to a doctor to using EPO, HGH and steroids. You responded by calling them "vindictive, bitter, vengeful and jealous." And that's the stuff we can say on TV.

Would you now label them as "honest"?

And what would you say directly to Betsy, who dealt with a voicemail from one of your henchmen that included, she's testified, this:"I hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head. I also hope that one day you have adversity in your life and you have some type of tragedy that will definitely make an impact on you."When you heard about that voicemail, why didn't you call Betsy and apologize then?

6. What do you say to Emma O'Reilly, who was a young Dublin native when she was first hired by the U.S. Postal team to give massages to the riders after races?

In the early 2000s, she told stories of rampant doping and how she was used to transport the drugs across international borders. In the USADA report, she testified that you tried to "make my life hell."

Her story was true, Lance, wasn't it? And you knew it was true. Yet despite knowing it was true, you, a famous multimillionaire superstar, used high-priced lawyers to sue this simple woman for more money than she was worth in England, where slander laws favor the famous. She had no chance to fight it.

She testified that you tried to ruin her by spreading word that she was a prostitute with a heavy drinking problem.

"The traumatizing part," she once told the New York Times, "was dealing with telling the truth."

Do you want to apologize to her? Not in general. I mean directly and by name. I mean, Lance, of all the people to attack like that, of all the people you had power and wealth over, you had to go after her? How Lance, could you do this to someone, and why would anyone want to believe again in someone capable of doing this to someone?

Somehow I think that if either of these women were your wife, sister or mother you might think there really is reason to hate this guy.

Sorry, but it's not about the PEDs. It's about this guy being a supreme asshole

Mr. Armstrong did in a way. Years ago he was on the Jim Rome radio program denying s report by (not certain who) somebody who had knowledge of his doping ways. Mr. Armstrong wasted my time by saying things then that were false. I take that personally. I believed him because I figured he would not be defending himself so vigorously if he were guilty.

I was a fool. I don't like the feeling of realizing that I was a fool.

LetsRun.com wrote:To the tiny few Armstrong defenders that are still out there,

I think LR is misconstruing people who think the overt rants against Lance Armstrong are slightly unprofessional, and obviously overboard, with "defenders." I doubt anyone here defends Armstrong as innocent, but nobody outside of Letsrun's staff has gone so tangentially awry on these boards, flaming the already debased cyclist.

Yes, exactly this. Also, I agree with you on the unprofessional rants. The text accompanying today's QOD:

"A pathetic Lance Armstrong as he stormed out of a secret meeting last month with USADA head Travis Tygart after Tygart refused to buy Lance's sob excuses to get his triathlon ban overturned. So Lance stormed out and sought Oprah to try to get redemption via the public's sympathy. The man, who still flies on private jets and vacations in Hawaii, apparently wants to do triathlons as he views it as his only way to make dough."

I come to this site all the time, but this kind of writing often bothers me. I dislike Lance. I think he is an ass. But the language here comes off as a bit juvenile. You can be harshly critical without it.

LetsRun.com wrote:To the tiny few Armstrong defenders that are still out there,

I think LR is misconstruing people who think the overt rants against Lance Armstrong are slightly unprofessional, and obviously overboard, with "defenders." I doubt anyone here defends Armstrong as innocent, but nobody outside of Letsrun's staff has gone so tangentially awry on these boards, flaming the already debased cyclist.

Agreed. We get it. You don't like Lance because he doped. It's time to let it go.

Actually, you apparently don't get it.

Folks who passionately hate Lance do not do so because he doped. They do so because he went out of his way to destroy the careers, and to the extent possible the personal lives, of those who had the audacity to tell the truth. This is indeed a reasonable reason to absolutely despise the guy.

From Dan Wetzel's article:

3. Let's talk Betsy Andreu, the wife of one your former teammates, Frankie. Both Andreus testified under oath that they were in a hospital room in 1996 when you admitted to a doctor to using EPO, HGH and steroids. You responded by calling them "vindictive, bitter, vengeful and jealous." And that's the stuff we can say on TV.

Would you now label them as "honest"?

And what would you say directly to Betsy, who dealt with a voicemail from one of your henchmen that included, she's testified, this:"I hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head. I also hope that one day you have adversity in your life and you have some type of tragedy that will definitely make an impact on you."When you heard about that voicemail, why didn't you call Betsy and apologize then?

6. What do you say to Emma O'Reilly, who was a young Dublin native when she was first hired by the U.S. Postal team to give massages to the riders after races?

In the early 2000s, she told stories of rampant doping and how she was used to transport the drugs across international borders. In the USADA report, she testified that you tried to "make my life hell."

Her story was true, Lance, wasn't it? And you knew it was true. Yet despite knowing it was true, you, a famous multimillionaire superstar, used high-priced lawyers to sue this simple woman for more money than she was worth in England, where slander laws favor the famous. She had no chance to fight it.

She testified that you tried to ruin her by spreading word that she was a prostitute with a heavy drinking problem.

"The traumatizing part," she once told the New York Times, "was dealing with telling the truth."

Do you want to apologize to her? Not in general. I mean directly and by name. I mean, Lance, of all the people to attack like that, of all the people you had power and wealth over, you had to go after her? How Lance, could you do this to someone, and why would anyone want to believe again in someone capable of doing this to someone?

Somehow I think that if either of these women were your wife, sister or mother you might think there really is reason to hate this guy.

Sorry, but it's not about the PEDs. It's about this guy being a supreme asshole

Here's the deal. What some people are saying is that they don't care about cycling or Lance.

Some people are saying that if you are "hating" on a guy that you don't know...then you have issues in your life.

If you know Lance, or were hurt by him, or know anyone who was...then you get to "passionately hate."

But other than that, get an effing grip, this is a public figure, a stranger, you've never met, and has nothing REAL to do with your everyday life. (Politicians don't get a pass on this because they pass laws that effect all citizens).

You might as well hate on Pamela Anderson for having fake breasts, because she's made money off of being a fraud.

Yes, Lance BAD.

Yes, LRC and others getting too much of a "hate high" on this story...just sick.

The time you spend hating on Lance, you could be sending your mother flowers, or shopping for a new golf bag for your dad.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS.

si ripperfield-snitchermous

RE: Way to go Michael Wilbon!! Wilbon: “Lance Amstrong’s A Pig"1/16/2013 7:35AM - in reply to Stater of the Oblivious

Stater of the Oblivious wrote:Ten years ago, Wilbon was kissing his nutsack, like every other so-called journalist, furthur fueling his need for more PEDs. Media should own up to being part of the problem.

You know what, as much as I love PTI and Wilbon this was also one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind...